SHAH MUHAMMAD ETC. vs The STATE
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against the cancellation of bail by the Lahore High Court in a murder case. The petitioners were charged under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Muhammad Amin and injuries to his son. The petitioners argued that the medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version, specifically regarding the number of injuries and the type of weapons used, and raised a plea of alibi and the remoteness of the motive. The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in cancelling the bail. The Court held that the presence of the petitioners' names in the F.I.R., the presence of an injured eyewitness, and the recovery of blood-stained earth established a prima facie case. It further ruled that a plea of alibi cannot be determined at the bail stage and must be proven at trial. Consequently, the Court found no violation of fundamental principles of justice and dismissed the petition.
- Can a plea of alibi be effectively determined at the bail stage of criminal proceedings?
- Does the presence of an injured eyewitness in the F.I.R. constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail in a murder case?
- Is the cancellation of bail by a High Court justified when the prosecution case is supported by F.I.R. details and recovery of incriminating evidence?
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 307, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The petitioners are involved in a case under section 3021307134, P. P.
C. For the murder of Muhammad Amin and for causing injuries to his son Muhammad Umar. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about evening time in the area of Gogga Chak No. 39 on 11-11-1978 and report about it was- lodged on the name day as per F. I. R. No. 13 at Police Station Pattoki at 9-15 p.m. By Allah Ditta uncle of the deceased against the petitioners and two others. The petitioners were armed with daggers and the two others who were also alleged to have taken part in the occurrence were armed with knives. Muhammad Amin died at the spot. The cause of this murder was alleged to be a pre-emption suit over the purchase of 9 acres of land by one Inayat from Sajjad brother-in-law of complainant Allah Ditta. Immediate motive asserted was a dispute between the deceased and Muhammad Umar P. W. On one side and the present petitioners on the other inasmuch as two months earlier Muhammad Amin and Muhammad Umar wanted to pass through the aforesaid land but the accused held out threats to them. The petitioners applied for bail which was granted to them by the learned Sessions Judge on 26-6-1978. The complainant Allah Ditta filed an application being Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2876-B of 1978 for cancellation of their bail which was accepted by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court on 21-8-1978. The accused petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the prosecution case is not borne out by the medical evidence inasmuch as the deceased Muhammad Amin had only two injuries out of which one was a stab wound on the front of the chest and the other was a contusion outside the left eye.
He submitted that it was not borne out as to which of the accused had caused which injury, and further more, if all the accused had attacked Muhammad Amin then he would have more than two injuries on his person. It was also submitted that injury No. 2 on the deceased had not been explained in the F. I. R. An argument was raised that by daggers there could be caused only a stab wound and not any incised Mounds. Another point raised was that Shah Muhammad petitioner had taken up a plea of alibi which was according to him satisfactorily established on the record.
Similarly it was pleaded that the motive alleged was too remote to connect the petitioners with the crime. In view of the aforesaid characteristics of the prosecution case, it is argued that the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge should not have been cancelled by the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
3. We have gone through the record with the help of the learned counsel. We find that the learned Single Judge was right in holding that this was not a fit case to extend the privilege of bail to the petitioners. The names of the petitioners are contained in the F. I. R. Together with the weapons with which they are alleged to have attacked the deceased and the injured P. W. The names of the eye- witnesses are also mentioned in the F. I. R. Muhammad Umar P. W. Is injured which shows his presence's on the spot. It was conceded that he duly supported the prosecution case. The blood- stained earth was recovered from the place there the occurrence was alleged to have taken place.
The mere assertion of a plea of alibi cannot make any difference in the matter of bail at this stage because its veracity can only be proved by leading proper evidence at the time of the trial.
Similarly the plea that no incised wound could have been caused by a dagger,etc. Has not impressed us. In view of this aforesaid overall facts and the circumstances of the case, the order of the learned Single Judge seems to be unexceptionable. As the learned counsel has not been able to point out to us violation of any fundamental principle of administration of justice in the matter of grant of bail in cases of present kind, there is no justification to grant special leave to appeal. The petition has no merit and is dismissed.